Filner vetoes city attorney funding

Related

Mayor Bob Filner used his veto to cut more than $500,000 in funding from the budget of City Attorney Jan Goldsmith, a political rival at City Hall since Filner took office seven months ago.

The veto document dated Wednesday shows lines through the funding portions dealing with the City Attorney's office, along with Filner’s initials.

Filner did not respond to a request for comment made through his office on Friday.

Filner proposed cutting $1.4 million from Goldsmith’s $43.6 million budget in April — the only cut in the entire city budget that Filner proposed. The mayor later reduced the amount of the reduction to $508,000.

Document

Earlier this month, a City Council majority in a 5-4 vote restored what was cut when formally adopting the budget. If that vote split stands, it won't be enough to override a mayoral veto. Six votes are needed.

Goldsmith has said that the budget cut means he would likely be forced to make cuts in popular programs, such as the Neighborhood Prosecution Unit, which aren’t mandated by the city charter.

Goldsmith declined comment Friday except to say, “We appreciate the support of the City Council majority.”

Democratic Filner and Republican Goldsmith, the only two citywide elected officals, differ as to what role a city attorney should play. Filner would prefer one as a private adviser, and Goldsmith sees himself as accountable publicly to the people.

Filner’s veto came one day after a the mayor ordered a member of his police detail to remove Andrew Jones, Goldsmith’s second-in-command, from a closed meeting regarding lawsuits the city is involved in.

After the meeting, Filner was the target of criticism from City Council members whose description of the mayor’s behavior ranged from wrong and offensive to inexcusable.

The city’s charter gives the mayor power to preside over closed session meetings and the Brown Act, which governs open meetings rules in California, allows for the removal of disruptive persons from any meeting.

Filner said in the meeting that Jones was disruptive. Jones denied that, saying he was just trying to get a question answered.

Both the Brown Act and the charter appear silent on whether the presiding officer can call for the removal of an individual, but Robert’s Rules of Order gives wide berth to those running meetings to take such acts.

It’s unclear how or whether a closed session dealing with city lawsuits can proceed if the city attorney’s designate is removed from the meeting.

The city’s municipal code indicates that the mayor may have overstepped his bounds.

According to the code, the city attorney or one of his deputies must attend all meetings of the council, and upon invitation, attend any meetings of any council committee.

The meeting at the center of the controversy was a closed session of a council meeting.

“The presence of a city attorney representative is legally required at all council meetings, and the mayor cannot avoid that just because he’s in a bad mood,” San Diego Republican Lawyers President Ryan Darby said in a statement.

The veto and the showdown in the closed session are just the latest examples in the growing rift between the two offices.

They have also clashed on issues such as medical pot dispensaries, a $35 million bond issue and Filner’s governance of the city.